The Summary is very clear. I can't see the government appealing against the judgement given the points that they have already accepted.

Its is hard to credit they didn't have such legal opinion when they set off towards submission of Article 50 notice. More likely they anticipated somebody would appeal or call for a vote in Parliament to get the law changed to allow an Art. 50 submission. If they get this through, they carry on as before but have by that process weakened the Remain camp and various opposition groups. If they don't get it through (remembering the Lords are strongly against Brexit and don't depend on voters for their seats), they can accuse the other side of undemocratic arrogance and call a general election. The Conservatives will win this on a Brexit platform as there is no serious leading opposition party and hey presto, the opposition remains divided while the Euro-sceptic Tory MPs are whipped into line to keep power.

Now I see this set out like this, is this another step in a brilliant heads you lose tails I win strategy started by David Cameron? Or have I had too much caffeine today?

It seems - increasingly, these days - that legal opinions, no matter how "eminent", on previously untested matters ("is it legal to invade Iraq without a further UN resolution?" springs to mind), are always going to be open to question/interpretation.

It's still possible that the Supreme Court can overrule this. (I doubt it, myself, I admit.)

Many MP's who were on the remain side aren't going to prevent Article 50 notification in a vote in parliament at this stage anyway, because they accept it as "democratic will" even if it wasn't their own preference.

Some of the Labour rebels ("just" the 80% of them who recently expressed lack of confidence in their own leader) will have mixed feelings about calling/forcing a general election, perhaps. Some of those without safe seats may lose them; on the other hand, it would (presumably?) bring forward Corbyn's resignation by a couple of years (even he can't cling to power if he drops 100 seats in a general election???), which they'd surely welcome, at least in principle?

Under the new Fixed Term Parliaments Act, there can be a general election only if the House has no confidence in the government, I think? They actually have to have a "no confidence" motion? But the government being unable to get its legislation through is kind of similar, arguably.

The Conservatives will win this on a Brexit platform as there is no serious leading opposition party

Certainly - no question about that.

and hey presto, the opposition remains divided while the Euro-sceptic Tory MPs are whipped into line to keep power.

I wouldn't fancy trying to whip that nice Jacob Rees-Mogg into line. Seriously, Europe is an issue on which Tory rebels just will not be whipped. But that isn't going to be relevant here, anyway, surely?

Its true, a general election might force Jeremy Corbyn out, which brings a united Labour opposition one step nearer. But the stronger the opposition in an election, the less rebellious would be the Conservative MPs, as long as the government maintains its direct straight-to-Brexit by the shortest possible route objective.

It was about time I guess... But "EU's greatest disaster" will be a very long and difficult process although as per the information Britain should officially leave the EU no later than April 2019 and will have a huge impact on economy, trading relationships, etc. I have a hunch that other countries might follow this path and request their own leave.